Scofield v. Guillard

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF IDAHO
REBECCA SCOFIELD,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ASHLEY GUILLARD,
Defendant.
Case No.: 3:22-cv-00521-REP
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER RE:
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
EXCLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY
AND EVIDENCE OF REBECCA
BOHN, MA AND REBECCA TALLENT
(Dkt. 102)
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ENTRY
OF PROTECTIVE ORDER
(Dkt. 110)
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE
(Dkt. 111)
Before the Court are (i) Defendant’s Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony and Evidence
of Rebecca Bohn, MA and Rebecca Tallent (“Motion to Exclude”) (Dkt. 102); (ii) Plaintiff’s
Motion for Entry of Protective Order (“Motion for Protective Order”) (Dkt. 110); and (iii)
Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine (Dkt. 111). Because the Court conclusively finds that the decisional
process would not be significantly aided by oral argument, the motions will be decided on the
record and without oral argument. As discussed more fully below, Defendant’s Motion to
Exclude is granted in part and denied in part, and Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order and
Motion in Limine are granted.
I. BACKGROUND
This case arises out of the tragic murder of four University of Idaho students in
November 2022. Plaintiff Rebecca Scofield is a professor at the University of Idaho. She
alleges that, despite never meeting any of these students or being involved with their murders in
any way, Defendant Ashley Guillard posted numerous TikTok (and later YouTube) videos
Case 3:22-cv-00521-REP Document 113 Filed 01/23/26 Page 1 of 15

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2
falsely claiming that Plaintiff (i) had an extramarital, same-sex, romantic affair with one of the
victims; and then (ii) ordered the four murders to prevent the affair from coming to light.
Plaintiff sent cease-and-desist letters to Defendant in the following days and weeks. When
Defendant did not stop, Plaintiff initiated this action. Plaintiff asserts two defamation claims
against Defendant: one is premised upon the false statements regarding Plaintiff’s involvement
with the murders themselves, the other is premised upon the false statement regarding Plaintiff’s
romantic relationship with one of the murdered students.
On June 6, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment. See 6/6/24 MDO at 8-20 (Dkt. 74). On the issue of liability regarding Plaintiff’s two
defamation claims against Defendant, the Court concluded that “the totality of the evidence
reveals that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact that Defendant defamed Plaintiff.”
Id. at 20. Also on June 6, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend
Complaint to Add Punitive Damages. Id. at 20-22. In permitting a claim for punitive damages,
the Court concluded that Plaintiff “established a reasonable likelihood of proving, by clear and
convincing evidence, that Defendant’s conduct in accusing Plaintiff of an affair with a student
before ordering that student’s and three other students’ murders was oppressive, fraudulent,
malicious, and/or outrageous.” Id. at 21. The extent of Plaintiff’s damages, if any, remains an
outstanding issue.
A four-day jury trial is set to begin on February 24, 2026 in Boise, Idaho. See Order
Setting Tr. (Dkt. 100). With liability already established, the sole issue for trial is whether
Plaintiff is entitled to damages and, if so, the amount of those damages. To support her damages
theory, Plaintiff has identified two experts who may testify at trial: Rebecca Tallent and Rebecca
Bohn. See Ex. A to Olson Decl. (Dkt. 103-2). In advance of trial, Defendant moves to exclude
these experts’ testimony pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702. See generally Def.’s Mem.
Case 3:22-cv-00521-REP Document 113 Filed 01/23/26 Page 2 of 15

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3
ISO Mot. to Exclude (Dkt. 102-1). Also before trial, Plaintiff seeks to secure a protective order
relating to certain trial exhibits speaking to Plaintiff’s medical and financial records. See
generally Pl.’s Mot. for PO (Dkt. 110). Plaintiff additionally moves in limine to preclude
Defendant from presenting evidence or argument relating to the “truth” of whether Plaintiff had
an affair with a victim or orchestrated the four murders. See generally Pl.’s MIL (Dkt. 111).
Each motion is addressed below.
II. ANALYSIS
A. 	Defendant’s Motion to Exclude (Dkt. 102)
Within her Motion to Exclude, Defendant argues that neither Rebecca Tallent nor
Rebecca Bohn is qualified to offer expert testimony and that their opinions regarding
reputational harm and psychological injury are unreliable, speculative, and unsupported by
sufficient facts or data. Plaintiff opposes the motion, contending that both witnesses are
qualified by education and experience, that their opinions are based on reliable principles and
methods, and that their testimony will assist the jury in determining the extent of damages. The
Court addresses each witness in turn under the standards set forth in Federal Rule of Evidence
702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
1. 	Legal Standard
Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence governs and limits the admissibility of expert
testimony in two ways. First, Rule 702 only permits witnesses with special “knowledge, skill,
experience, training, or education” to testify as experts. Fed. R. Evid. 702. Second, Rule 702
limits a qualified expert’s testimony to that which (i) “will help the trier of fact to understand the
evidence or to determine a fact in issue”; (ii) “is based on sufficient facts or data”; (iii) “is the
product of reliable principles and methods”; and (iv) is reliably applied to the facts of the case.
Fed. R. Evid. 702(a)-(d).
Case 3:22-cv-00521-REP Document 113 Filed 01/23/26 Page 3 of 15

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 4
In other words, to be admissible, an expert’s testimony must “rest on a reliable
foundation and [be] relevant to the task at hand.” Hyer v. City and Cnty of Honolulu, 118 F.4th
1044, 1055 (9th Cir. 2024) (quoting Elosu v. Middlefork Ranch Inc., 26 F.4th 1017, 1024 (9th
Cir. 2022)). Expert testimony is relevant if it “will assist the trier of fact to understand the
evidence or to determine a fact in issue.” Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579,
589 (1993) (citing Fed. R. Evid. 702(a)); see also Primiano v. Cook, 598 F.3d 558, 565 (9th Cir.
2010) (“Expert opinion testimony is relevant if the knowledge underlying it has a valid
connection to the pertinent inquiry.”). In comparison, the reliability inquiry is fact-specific and
depends “on the nature of the issue, the expert’s particular expertise, and the subject of his
testimony.” Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 150 (1999).
To guide this reliability analysis, the Supreme Court has outlined several factors to use in
determining whether expert testimony is reliable. Daubert, 509 U.S. at 592-94. These factors
include “(i) whether a theory or technique can be tested; (ii) whether it has been subjected to peer
review and publication; (iii) the known or potential error rate of the theory of technique; and (iv)
whether the theory or technique enjoys general acceptance within the relevant scientific
community.” United States v. Hankey, 203 F.3d 1160, 1167 (9th Cir. 2000); see also Primiano,
598 F.3d at 565 (“[Expert opinion testimony] is reliable if the knowledge underlying it has a
reliable basis in the knowledge and experience of the relevant discipline.”). Ultimately, the Rule
702 inquiry is a “flexible” one, and district courts have broad discretion. Daubert, 509 U.S. at
594; Kumho, 526 U.S. at 142.
2. 	Rebecca Tallent
Dr. Tallent is a retired associate professor emerita with more than five decades of
experience in journalism, public relations, and academia. See Resp. to Mot. to Exclude at 2, 4-5
(Dkt. 103) (citing Ex. A to Olson Decl. (Dkt. 103-2)). She holds a bachelor’s degree in
Case 3:22-cv-00521-REP Document 113 Filed 01/23/26 Page 4 of 15

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 5
journalism, a master’s degree in education with a journalism emphasis, and a doctorate in
education focused on higher education, classroom teaching, and mass communications. See id.
During her career, Dr.. Tallent taught public relations and journalism at the University of Idaho
and other institutions, published scholarly and professional works on media and ethics, and
worked professionally in journalism and public relations. See id. Based on this background, Dr.
Tallent offers opinions concerning how defamatory statements made via social medial can affect
an individual’s professional reputation in an academic setting. See id. at 2-3 (citing Ex. A to
Olson Decl. (Dkt. 103-2). She specifically opines that Defendant’s statements have damaged
Plaintiff’s reputation to a significant degree and that it could take decades, or even a generation,
for Plaintiff to restore her reputation, if ever. See id.
Defendant argues that Dr. Tallent is not qualified to offer these opinions and that her
testimony is unreliable because it is speculative, exaggerated, and unsupported by facts or data
tied to Plaintiff’s actual circumstances. See Mem. ISO Mot. to Exclude at 7-8 (Dkt. 102-1).
According to Defendant, Dr. Tallent’s conclusions regarding the existence and extent of
reputational harm are untethered from evidence and amount to biased advocacy from a colleague
rather than expert analysis. See id.
The Court first addresses qualification. Rule 702 sets a low bar for expertise, and Dr.
Tallent’s education, training, and extensive professional experience in journalism, public
relations, and academia qualify her to testify as an expert regarding general principles of
reputation, branding, and the ways in which negative publicity – particularly online – can impact
professionals in academic environments. Defendant’s objections do not directly confront Dr.
Tallent’s credentials or expertise; rather, they challenge the strength and foundation of the
conclusions she draws from that experience. Accordingly, the Court finds that Dr. Tallent is
qualified as an expert within the meaning of Rule 702.
Case 3:22-cv-00521-REP Document 113 Filed 01/23/26 Page 5 of 15

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 6
Dr. Tallent’s testimony is also relevant. The jury will be asked to assess damages,
including whether and how Plaintiff’s professional reputation may have been affected by
Defendant’s defamatory statements. Testimony explaining how reputational harm can occur,
how internet-based dissemination differs from traditional media, and how academics may be
uniquely vulnerable to reputational injury may assist the trier of fact in understanding issues
beyond the knowledge of a lay juror. In that respect, Dr. Tallent’s testimony satisfies Rule 702’s
relevance requirement.
The more difficult question concerns reliability and scope. While experience-based
expert testimony may be admissible, the expert still must explain how that experience reliably
leads to the conclusions offered. Here, Dr. Tallent may testify about general mechanisms of
reputational harm, including how defamatory statements and the manner of their dissemination
can negatively affective an academic’s reputation. However, her opinions go further. She
repeatedly states:
“Ms. Guillard’s statements have damaged Professor Scofield’s reputation to
an extent that it may take up to a full generation, or forty years, to restore her
reputation.”
“Ms. Guillard’s false statements have damaged Professor Scofield’s brand as
a researcher and a teacher.”
“The defamatory statements also will damage Professor Scofield’s reputation
among students, who may spread the statements, even if they are false,
resulting in fewer students taking her classes ….”
“Ms. Guillard’s use of social media and the internet to publish her false
statements 	significantly 	increases 	the 	impact 	on 	Professor 	Scofield’s
reputation.”
“It could take a generation for Rebecca Scofield to restore her reputation, if
at all.”
“Ms. Scofield has damaged Professor Scofield’s reputation to a significant
degree.”
Case 3:22-cv-00521-REP Document 113 Filed 01/23/26 Page 6 of 15

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 7
See Tallent Rpt., attached as Ex. A to Olson Decl. (Dkt. 103-2). These conclusions are not
accompanied by any discernible methodology, analytical framework, or explanation of how Dr.
Tallent moved from general principles of public relations to specific findings about Plaintiff’s
actual reputational harm.
Indeed, despite the above-referenced concrete opinions, much of Dr. Tallent’s report is
framed in conditional or probabilistic terms, such as statements that Defendant’s conduct “ha[s]
the capacity” to affect Plaintiff’s reputation or “may cause” harm. See id. Such phrasing
underscores the speculative nature of her conclusions and highlights the absence of a reliable
basis for opining that reputational harm has in fact occurred, or will occur, to any particular
degree. Given the significant weight juries may place on expert testimony, Rule 702 requires
more than unsupported statements grounded solely in the expert’s authority. Without a reliable
foundation demonstrating how Dr. Tallent reached her conclusions about the existence, severity,
or duration of Plaintiff’s reputational harm, those opinions risk misleading the jury.
Accordingly, Dr. Tallent is not precluded from testifying, but the scope of her testimony
will be narrowed. She may testify regarding her qualifications, general principles of reputation
and public relations, and how defamatory statements made over social media can impact an
individual’s professional reputation in academia. She may also describe potential ways in which
such harm could manifest. She may not, however, testify that Plaintiff was in fact damaged, that
Plaintiff suffered reputational harm to a particular degree, or that Plaintiff will suffer future
reputational harm as a result of Defendant’s actions. Those ultimate conclusions lack a
sufficiently reliable foundation and therefore would not be helpful to the trial of fact under Rule
702. Plaintiff remains free to argue reputational harm based on admissible evidence at trial, and
Defendant may attempt to undercut that claim by pointing out how Plaintiff’s “career and
reputation remain unscathed.” See e.g., Mem. ISO Mot. to Exclude at 8 (Dkt. 102-1). But Dr.
Case 3:22-cv-00521-REP Document 113 Filed 01/23/26 Page 7 of 15

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 8
Tallent herself may not offer speculative conclusions on that issue under the imprimatur of
expert testimony. Defendant’s Motion to Exclude is therefore granted in part and denied in part,
in this respect.
3. 	Rebecca Bohn1
Ms. Bohn is a licensed mental health counselor with a Master of Arts degree in
counseling psychology and more than three decades of experience providing psychotherapy and
behavioral health treatment. See Resp. to Mot. to Exclude at 3, 7-8 (Dkt. 103) (citing Ex. A to
Olson Decl. (Dkt. 103-2)). She began treating Plaintiff in May 2023 and has met with her
regularly since that time. See id. Based on her training, clinical experience, and longitudinal
treatment of Plaintiff, Ms. Bohn diagnosed Plaintiff with post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”)
and opines that Plaintiff will require ongoing mental health treatment into the future. See id.
Defendant argues that Ms. Bohn is not qualified to diagnose PTSD, that her opinions are
unreliable because they allegedly depart from the DSM-5 diagnostic criteria, and that defamation
cannot, as a matter of law or medicine, constitute a qualifying traumatic event. See Mem. ISO
Mot. to Exclude at 4-6 (Dkt. 102-1). Defendant further contends that Ms. Bohn’s opinions
1 In response to Defendant’s efforts to exclude Ms. Bohn’s testimony at trial, Plaintiff
argues at the outset that she may testify as a percipient fact witness because she is Plaintiff’s
treating mental health provider. See Resp. to Mot. to Exclude at 6-7 (Dkt. 103). Though
technically true, that argument misses the point. While treating providers are not required to
submit a full expert report under Rule 26 when testifying as to opinions formed during the course
of treatment, they are not exempt from the requirements of Rule 702. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26
Advisory Comm. Notes (2010) (“A witness who is not required to provide a report under Rule
26(a)(2)(B) may both testify as a fact witness and also provide expert testimony under Evidence
Rule 702, 703, or 705. Frequent examples include physicians or other health care professionals
and employees of a party who do not regularly provide expert testimony. Parties must identify
such witnesses under Rule 26(a)(2)(A) and provide the disclosure required under Rule
26(a)(2)(C).”) (emphasis added). The cases Plaintiff cites stand for that same proposition, but
they importantly do not hold that a treating provider’s testimony is non-expert in nature or
immune from relevance and reliability scrutiny. To be sure, Plaintiff designated Ms. Bohn as an
expert in her disclosures, and the Court must therefore evaluate her testimony under Rule 702
regardless of whether it is also factual in part. See Ex. A to Olson Decl. (Dkt. 103-2)
Case 3:22-cv-00521-REP Document 113 Filed 01/23/26 Page 8 of 15

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 9
improperly attribute Plaintiff’s psychological condition to Defendant’s conduct and therefore
should be excluded. See id. at 6. The Court disagrees and concludes that Ms. Bohn is qualified
to testify and that Defendant’s challenges go to the weight of her testimony, not its admissibility.
Ms. Bohn’s testimony is also relevant. The jury will be tasked with determining the
extent of Plaintiff’s damages, including emotional and psychological harm allegedly caused by
Defendant’s defamatory statements. Testimony regarding Plaintiff’s mental health diagnosis,
symptoms, treatment history, and prognosis may assist the jury in understanding the nature and
scope of the claimed injury and in determining damages, if any. Accordingly, Ms. Bohn’s
testimony satisfies Rule 702’s relevance requirement.
The Court additionally finds Ms. Bohn’s testimony sufficiently reliable. As a
psychotherapist, licensed mental health counselor, and behavior health educator, she is uniquely
qualified to diagnose patients with mental impairments, including PTSD. See, e.g., I.C. § 54-
3401(10) (practice of professional counseling includes “the application of mental health,
psychological, and human development principles in order to … prevent, assess, and treat
mental, emotional or behavioral disorders and associated distresses which interfere with mental
health[.]”). Unlike an expert retained solely for litigation, Ms. Bohn’s opinions are premised
upon a course of treatment, repeated clinical evaluations, and an ongoing relationship with
Plaintiff. Courts recognize that such medical care provides a reliable basis for diagnostic
opinions. See, e.g., Hardy v. Kish, 2025 WL 2051775, at *3 (D. Idaho 2025) (“‘An expert’s
specialized knowledge and experience can serve as the requisite facts or data on which they
render an opinion.’”) (quoting Elosu, 26 F.4th at 1024). The Court is satisfied at this time that
Ms. Bohn is qualified by education, licensure, and experience to diagnose PTSD and to opine
regarding Plaintiff’s need for continued treatment. In short, it appears that, professionally
speaking, this is exactly what she does. Plaintiff is expected to confirm as much at trial.
Case 3:22-cv-00521-REP Document 113 Filed 01/23/26 Page 9 of 15

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 10
Defendant’s unsupported argument that defamation cannot constitute a traumatic
triggering event sufficient to support a PTSD diagnosis is ultimately a dispute over diagnostic
criteria and causation. Whether Plaintiff’s experience satisfies the clinical requirements for
PTSD are matters on which mental health professions may (or may not) disagree. Such
disagreements are appropriately explored through cross-examination and, if Defendant chooses,
competing expert testimony. They do not, however, render Ms. Bohn’s opinions unreliable for
purposes of Rule 702. This is because courts routinely allow expert testimony linking
psychological conditions to tortious conduct, including defamation. See, e.g., Stevens v. Lee,
2024 WL 729960, at *8 (D. Idaho 2024) (“[W]ith respect to his defamation claim, Stevens may
be able to establish – through an expert witness or treatment provider – that the purported
diminishment in his congregation caused him to suffer compensable emotional distress.”). At
bottom, Daubert does not require unanimity within a field; nor does it permit the Court to
resolve medical disputes that are properly left to the jury.2
Accordingly, the Court finds that Ms. Bohn is qualified to testify and that her opinions
are based on a sufficiently reliable foundation. Defendant’s challenges to her conclusions and to
the causal link between Defendant’s conduct and Plaintiff’s PTSD may be fully addressed
through cross-examination and argument at trial, but they do not warrant exclusion of her
testimony now. Defendant’s Motion to Exclude is therefore denied in this respect.
2 Separately, courts often limit treating providers from opining on causation where such
opinions were not formed during the course of treatment. See Sepe v. Gordon Trucking, Inc.,
755 Fed. Appx. 668, 670 (9th Cir. 2019) (“Causation testimony by a treating physician is expert
opinion, subject to the disclosure and written report requirement detailed in Rule 26(a)(2) if the
physician’s opinion on causation was formed outside the course of treatment.”). But PTSD is an
event-linked diagnosis. Thus, in diagnosing PTSD during the course of treatment, a clinician
necessarily forms an opinion that a particular stressor produced the condition. Where, as here,
the treating provider concludes that defamatory conduct constituted the stressor giving rise to the
diagnosis, testimony linking the PTSD to that conduct arises directly from the diagnosis itself
and does not exceed the permissible scope of treating physician testimony.
Case 3:22-cv-00521-REP Document 113 Filed 01/23/26 Page 10 of 15

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 11
B. 	Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order (Dkt. 110)
Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order seeks to govern the exchange and use of certain
confidential and personally sensitive information ahead of the upcoming trial. See generally
Mot. for PO (Dkt. 110). Plaintiff requests entry of a protective order, substantially similar to the
District of Idaho’s model protective order, to limit public dissemination of confidential and
personally sensitive information, including medical and financial records, that will be disclosed
as trial exhibits leading up to trial. See id. at 2-4.
Under Rule 26(c), “any person from whom discovery is sought may move for a
protective order,” and the Court may, for good cause shown, issue an order to protect a party or
person from “annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 26(c)(1). The burden rests with the moving party to demonstrate good cause for the requested
protection. See In re Roman Cath. Archbishop of Portland in Oregon, 661 f.3d 417, 424 (9th
Cir. 2011). In assessing whether good cause exists, the Court must identify a particularized harm
that would result from disclosure and, if such harm is shown, balance the public and private
interests at stake. See id.
Plaintiff has met this burden. The materials at issue include medical and financial
records that contain sensitive personal information. Public disclosure of these materials would
likely result in embarrassment and irreparable harm to Plaintiff, particularly in light of the public
attention surrounding the facts of this case and Defendant’s prior dissemination of case-related
materials on social media.
The balance of interests further supports entry of a protective order. Any restriction on
public access is limited and temporary, applying only to trial and remaining subject to
individualized judicial review should the materials later be offered in connection with trial
proceedings. By contrast, the harm resulting from premature public disclosure of sensitive
Case 3:22-cv-00521-REP Document 113 Filed 01/23/26 Page 11 of 15

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 12
personal information could be immediate and permanent. The proposed protective order closely
tracks the District of Idaho’s model protective order and includes procedures allowing challenges
to confidentiality designations, ensuring that the scope of protection is narrowly tailored.
The Court also notes that, despite not agreeing to a protective order, Defendant has not
formally opposed Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order. Under Local Civil Rule 7.1(f)(1),
failure to file a response “may be deemed to constitute a consent to the … granting of [the
motion].” Dist. of Idaho Loc. Civ. R. 7.1(f)(1). This fact further supports the Court’s above
“balance of interests” analysis favoring Plaintiff.
Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause under Rule 26(c)
for entry of a protective order. Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order is therefore granted.
Plaintiff’s proposed protective order will be separately entered.
C. 	Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine (Dkt. 111).
Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine seeks an order prohibiting Defendant from presenting
evidence or argument concerning the purported “truth” of defendant’s prior statements alleging
that Plaintiff had an affair with a student and orchestrated the murders of four University of
Idaho students. See generally Mot. in Limine (Dkt. 111). Plaintiff contends that, because the
Court has already determined liability, such evidence is irrelevant to the sole remaining issue for
trial – damages – and would risk confusing and prejudicing the jury. See id.
Motions in limine are a procedural mechanism used to limit testimony or evidence in
advance of trial in order to streamline proceedings and avoid the introduction of inadmissible or
prejudicial material. See United States v. Heller, 551 F.3d 1108, 1111 (9th Cir. 2009). They are
“useful tools to resolve issues which would otherwise clutter up the trial,” City of Pomona v.
SQM N. Am. Corp., 866 F.3d 1060, 1070 (9th Cir. 2017), but are not intended to resolve factual
disputes or weigh competing evidence. C&E Servs., Inc. v. Ashland Inc., 539 F. Supp. 2d 316,
Case 3:22-cv-00521-REP Document 113 Filed 01/23/26 Page 12 of 15

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 13
323 (D.D.C. 2008). Rulings on motions in limine are inherently provisional and remain subject
to revision as the trial unfolds. See Ohler v. United States, 529 U.S. 753, 758 n.3 (2000). As a
result, a ruling on a motion in limine reflects a preliminary evidentiary determination that falls
squarely within the Court’s discretion. See City of Pomona, 866 F.3d at 1070; Luce v. United
States, 469 U.S. 38, 41 n.4 (1984).
Applying these principles here, Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine is well-taken. The Court has
already determined, as a matter of law, that Defendant’s statements accusing Plaintiff of an affair
and involvement in the murders were false and defamatory. See 6/6/24 MDO (Dkt. 74).
Liability is no longer in dispute. The upcoming trial is limited to determining the amount of
damages to which Plaintiff is entitled. Thus, any evidence or argument offered to suggest that
Defendant’s statements were true – or that there was some factual basis for them – has no
bearing on any issue the jury must decide. Such evidence is therefore not relevant under Federal
Rules of Evidence 401 and 402.
Even assuming that such evidence could be framed as marginally relevant, it would
nonetheless be excluded under Federal Rule of Evidence 403. Allowing Defendant to advance
well-after-the-fact arguments or evidence concerning the “truth” of the defamatory statements
would present a substantial risk of confusing the issues and misleading the jury as to the scope of
the trial. The danger of unfair prejudice is particularly present given the inflammatory nature of
the allegations and the likelihood that such evidence would distract from the proper focus of the
damages inquiry. Any minimal probative value is substantially outweighed by these risks, as
well as by the prospect of undue delay and a waste of time.
The Court again notes that Defendant has not formally opposed Plaintiff’s Motion in
Limine. Under Local Civil Rule 7.1(f)(1), failure to file a response “may be deemed to
constitute a consent to the … granting of [the motion].” Dist. of Idaho Loc. Civ. R. 7.1(f)(1).
Case 3:22-cv-00521-REP Document 113 Filed 01/23/26 Page 13 of 15

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 14
Accordingly, in the exercise of its discretion and mindful that its ruling remains subject to
revision should circumstances at trial warrant, Plaintiff’s arguments are ultimately persuasive.
Unless otherwise permitted, Defendant shall not present evidence or argument at trial concerning
the purported truth of the defamatory statements involved in this case. Plaintiff’s Motion in
Limine is therefore granted.
III. ORDER
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. 	Defendant’s Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony and Evidence of Rebecca
Bohn, MA and Rebecca Tallent (Dkt. 102) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows:
a. 	Dr. Tallent may not testify that Plaintiff was in fact damaged, that Plaintiff
suffered reputational harm to a particular degree, or that Plaintiff will suffer future reputational
harm as result of Defendant’s actions. In these respects, Defendant’s Motion to Exclude is
GRANTED.
b. 	Dr. Tallent may testify regarding her qualifications, general principles of
reputation and public relations, and how defamatory statements made over social media can
impact an individual’s professional reputation in academia. She may also describe potential
ways in which such harm may manifest. In these respects, Defendant’s Motoin to Exclude is
DENIED.
c. 	Ms. Bohn may testify about her treatment of Plaintiff. In this respect,
Defendant’s Motoin to Exclude is DENIED.
///
///
///
///
Case 3:22-cv-00521-REP Document 113 Filed 01/23/26 Page 14 of 15

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 15
2. 	Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Protective Order (Dkt. 110) is GRANTED.
3. 	Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine (Dkt. 111) is GRANTED.
DATED: January 23, 2026
________________________
Honorable Raymond E. Patricco
Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge
Case 3:22-cv-00521-REP Document 113 Filed 01/23/26 Page 15 of 15